<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/2/2025 7:26 PM, Moming Duan wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:143938DE-DEAA-40D9-B6BB-70032A7059CA@gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div>Hi Pamela,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite"><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal;
font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing:
normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform:
none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;
float: none; display: inline !important;">2. I believe the
nature of open source licenses is that they impose
requirements on the licensee only to the extent they assure
that the licensor receives the benefit that is their motive
for putting software under an open source license and to
protect the licensor from harm when they have generously
made a gift. However, this term is for the benefit of the
public and I don't see what value the licensor gets from it.
If that's true, I think it is just another barrier that a
licensee has to take into account, thus introducing friction
when we are trying to make licensing as frictionless as
possible.</span><br style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal;
font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing:
normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform:
none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;">
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<div>I acknowledge that requiring AI-generated content to be
declared may introduce friction, but the absence of such a
provision can also harm open source. Nowadays, it is common to
transfer knowledge by improving a model based on content
generated by other models. If we do not address this behavior,
the sustainability of open source cannot be guaranteed. Even
though the ModelGo License considers knowledge transfer as
creating a derivative work, people can still circumvent this by
publishing generated content as a dataset without disclosing
which model was used (e.g., a model with an open source
requirement). </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I am also considering whether we could narrow this clause so
that it only applies when distributing a collection of outputs,
requiring disclosure of the info of original model and its
license. Any suggestions on this? Thanks.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes, I think you are at least being overinclusive, because you
are requiring for everyone who creates outputs, even text, audio
or visual works. I'm not sure how you would even determine
compliance. If I have some AI images and some Getty Images as
illustrations for my blog posts, what if I put in my Terms of Use
"some images created using AI." Am I in breach or not?<br>
</p>
<p>As to using a model for training, I'll leave it to others who are
better-versed in AI than I am. But just being a good practice
doesn't mean that it must or should be required by the license.
If a model doesn't give me adequate information about its
provenance, then I expect good practice says be very wary of it.
Having a license that requires that you tell me if AI was used
doesn't mean someone actually will tell me; licenses aren't
self-enforcing. The licensee could have simply elected to be in
breach of the license and no one, including the licensor for
purposes of enforcement, will be any the wiser. So, in my
opinion, it's greater friction for no benefit.<br>
</p>
<p>Pam</p>
<p><br>
Pamela S. Chestek (in my personal capacity)<br>
Chestek Legal<br>
PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW MAILING ADDRESS<br>
4641 Post St.<br>
Unit 4316<br>
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762<br>
+1 919-800-8033<br>
pamela@chesteklegal<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.chesteklegal.com">www.chesteklegal.com</a><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:143938DE-DEAA-40D9-B6BB-70032A7059CA@gmail.com">
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div>Moming</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
License-review mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>